Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Thursday December 02, 2010 @12:26PM
from the more-is-better dept.

airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"

I don't care about the bragging. I do think, though, that the more leaking the better.

Most of the really foul stuff that the public has ever discovered about their government has been via leaks. There used to be investigative journalists that would try to make those leaks happen. But eventually most news organizations realized that they depended on easy access to insider sources, and the way to keep that access was to cover things the way those insider sources wanted them covered, so as a result instead of meeting Deep Throat in a parking garage we have reporters lining up to deep throat Scooter Libbey in exchange for the latest scoop on Joe Wilson's wife (for example). So now we need citizen efforts to make those leaks happen, and I view Wikileaks as a proof of concept as well as a source of specific leaks.

Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.

I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.

And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years

In order to be a thief you have to steal and in order to steal you have to deprive someone of something. For someone who has demonstrated an ability to utilize web forms by posting to slashdot you seem to be blissfully unaware of the plethora of online dictionaries.If a copy artist has been sneaking into homes for years and copying stuff he would never have bought for his own use until he finally broke into one and found a nine year old girl tied up and reported it to the police at risk to himself for being

Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.

Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets. Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks, and leaking military data in general is an act of actively fighting for one side in a war. I like the attitude of these new guys, who are trying to focus more on exposing corruption, and less on helping particular sides in ongoing conflicts. (Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)

Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.

He was making precisely the same kind of mistake, so the comparison was directly applicable. Nobody said anything about not paying someone (theft of services) at all, so I'm not sure where you think that comes in.

Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets.

Real harm can be done by not leaking them, too. Which is greater in this case?

Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks,

[citation needed]

(Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)

A rape analogy when discussing Wikileaks is nothing less than an attack on Julian Assange, and I treated it accordingly.

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".

But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.

While I don't entirely agree with Assange's style of doing things, it's worth remembering that there is a significant difference between just making information available, and actually making sure it's heard.

Of course, you could easily argue that any effort to publicise the data puts some spin on it, but I'd rather they take that route than have the information sitting on some server where nobody bothers to look at it.

While I don't entirely agree with Assange's style of doing things, it's worth remembering that there is a significant difference between just making information available, and actually making sure it's heard.

That difference is credibility.

If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them. Same goes for them being published by an anonymous site somewhere. Wikileaks on the other hand now has a name behind it; it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.

If you look at the sites publication record, the idea of an anti-US stance does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikileaks published a significant amount of material relating to corporate and political misdeeds--Scientology documents, an Icelandic bank, internet censorship--in the years prior to the current cache it obtain from its US sources. Their next target is reputed to be a major bank (an organisation I think Wikileaks are underestimating).

The forces Wikileaks have incensed and the backlash that has been created--ideologically--among a supposedly sophisticated public, reveal just how corrupt, complacent and regressive modern society has become. Gone are the days when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes. We live in an age where ever more radicalised people eagerly swallow all propaganda tossed at them, from online sources in particular. Most of the public vehemence to Wikileaks and Assange that I have seen comes from younger, more tech saavy people. The older generation affords the site and its work far more respect.

These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.

These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.

Why? Is that something new? History is less corrupt? I think Wkileaks is a response to technology, not corruption. The need has always been there, the real difference here is there is a more efficient platform that is harder to control.
Also I think your assessment of the which generation appreciates Wikileaks is anecdotal and inaccurate. I'm actually surprised that so many people have been undecided on the issue instead of picking whatever side they typically identify with.

Except that you're being judgmental and lacking any comprehension about what's going on. The reason why Wikileaks needs to be in the press is that many people who have information that they'd like to leak are unaware of how to go about it. Sure there are other methods of doing it, but that makes precisely zero difference if the people wanting to leak the material don't know about it.

What I'd like to know is whether you're being deliberately obtuse or are just trying to tow the line that Wikileaks is bad

Assange wasn't a public figure until all those Iraq/Afghanistan papers were released. He stated his reason for coming out in public was b/c Wikileaks had created a shitstorm and someone had to be their public voice. Assange doesn't seem like the type of person who is enamored with celebrity. He's putting his life at risk doing all of this, it's hard to believe that becoming a celebrity is what motivates him.

Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.

There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.

If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.

Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.

There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again [xinhuanet.com]. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.

It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner

On the other hand, most people were unaware of this. What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life. Wikileaks has done more by being on TV constantly than by the service they offer imo.

My opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not is still un-decided.

It was how he _got_ the data.. and bragging about it probably didn't help much either.

Key word in my post was "necessarily". Obviously you can get hosed at any step in the process.. but before wikileaks I think most geeks assumed there really was no safe way to upload something to the internet.

While it is certainly possible he would have been tracked down, classified information is access controlled and they may have been about to narrow down who had access to it, they caught him because he bragged about it. He was not driven to do what he did for moral reasons, he did it for ego reasons. Well, something you find about people who do things for egotistical reasons is they usually feel the need to run their mouths about it. After all, hard for the world to know how awesome you (think) you are if yo

The original idea of Wikileaks was for whistleblowers to submit their scoops to them. Without the brand, there are no leaks, as whistleblowers don't know how to contact in the first place. Sure, the leak might get out, but Wikileaks provided a well known, secure platform.

These cables also came from somewhere and someone, and they approached Wikileaks with their information. Without Wikileaks, this wouldn't have happened.

I would agree that Wikileaks and Assange inject their bias a little heavier than what I

I watched the unedited version first. It looked as it was presented. Begging to shoot unarmed civilians that was *rescuing* the injured. When they found out that children were in the van the answer is "well the shouldn't bring children to a war zone". The US brought the warzone to their *home* city, a city with families in it, ie children etc. Its their job to not fire upon civilians. The pilots even lie about being shot at. In a *gun ship*.

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.

I really have to agree with this. You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest. It took the GOP deciding to push that narrative to suddenly put them on the front page.

If wikileaks did not make itself a big deal, the story would have languished. How many stories out there were you thinking "Oh my god, why is this not HUGH!!!1 and driving the media cycle?" Just didn't spark the right level of i

You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest.

You nailed the heart of a large part of the problem... A lot of scandals are just ignored by all but some obscure media outlets. Just look at some of the stories on Project Censored [projectcensored.org] (and the fact that they even exist). It really does show information does not have to be hidden to be unknown to the world... And some of the regular media can continue to ignore or distort the truth indefinitely, research like this well known 2003 report showing Fox information distortion [archive.org] was a real eye opener to me...

I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I think abuses, crimes, and the like should be exposed in general. I do feel Wikileaks made a large blunder by releasing names that could put peoples' lives in danger in some of their releases, but it appears they're no longer making that mistake at least.

On the other hand, I think one must always consider the potential harm every leak could cause. For example, if you had a video of General McChrystal burning a Koran and laughing about it, you prob

Maybe you should focus more on the info than either... The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of diverting attention to the messenger. The reaction has been far more educational than the info itself. Though it is an intriguing glance into how power works. And that makes it all okay.

Having a face to associate with an organization can be advantageous. Wikileaks wouldn't have had that much impact if it were a completely anonymous organization, without Assange and without the recent newspaper cooperations.

No interviews, no discussions, nobody to defend the organization in public makes it too easy to morally justify any measures deemed necessary against it. IMHO

Wikileaks was probably the first platform of its kind that people heard of (e.g. cryptome doesn't ring a bell for most people).

In fact, what happened with WikiLeaks is exactly what WikiLeaks wants to happen. The absolute worst possible outcome for a leak is to have it published but no one notices. With WikiLeaks making a big stink about stuff, it forces reactions from those involved.

Those leaked cables? They didn't carry anything new or surprising, but the way the government reacted though, gives it an element of truth. Make a big stink, and they suddenly gained popular

Assange is now the target of various levels of government reaction around the world. This puts a name on everything and makes it much harder for those governments to handle the situation by simply having him assassinated. Now it's going to be a lot more complicated to deal with this. Assange is on the run, accused of unlikely-sounding crimes. Yet while on the run the releases of information and the coordination of Wikileaks is ongoing. This raises everything to a very different level. What is happening righ

You mean the original leakers could have released the information anonymously? If there was no well know wikileaks, then the leakers wouldn't have sent them the information. The site depends on being well known enough to attract leakers, and leakers depend on the site being well known to ensure that people notice the information they leak.

But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.

You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.

The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It

But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information.

Without the buildup of publicity, Assange would have simply disappeared and any leak would have gone unnoticed, buried in bullshit newsday chaff. With it, the world will be eagerly waiting to see what he was killed for if he should disappear, and the release of his doomsday files will be broadly publicized by everyone.

Publicity has uses, and you simply don't understand them. That, or you find them distasteful, and are willing to be deliberately obtuse in order to miss the point.

Their early leaks [wikipedia.org] contained things about Somalia, Cayman Islands, Great Britain, etc. Surely you remember the "climategate" emails ? Those were from a UK university. Sure their latest leaks have been US centric but they're just releasing the most high profile, inflammatory, stuff they have. Oh, and as a EU citizen I would also like to read more of "our" leaked documents. Get to it,whistle blowers !

Anti-Americanism.. sigh. I don't think most people in the world hates America, but certainly a percentage do, and some of those I've met go on like nut-jobs. I think most of the criticism America gets is unfair, undue, and way out of proportion especially compared to other countries... the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc.... frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites. However, like Jews, people also hate Americans partly because American is successful, and there seems to a stupid success-hating gene in our gene pool (probably it's the same social hierarchy resentment when you're not the alpha dog). Then America is also a lot more "in our faces" than other countries, which is in fact due to its success... people don't care about North Korea because it doesn't enter the average person's life in any way on a daily basis. Then there is also an element of America's negatives being amplified by the perception of hypocrisy relative to the hype: America "markets itself" as "great", so naturally people will look for reasons to say it's not, kind of like Google and their 'do no evil', they draw attention and analysis to their behavior. Finally, we've all been brainwashed by anti-Westernism, and finally finally, the critics are cowards, they criticize America because nobody will kill them for doing so, they don't criticize Islamic countries because they'd get a fatwa and get killed.

the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc.

The type of person who would defend immoral behaviour by saying "but we are not as bad as China, North Korea etc." is just as bad as the kind of person you are complaining about. How many times have we heard the phrase "we may do bad things, but we're not as bad as Al-Qaeda"? Too many to be worth crediting, unfortunately...

frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites.

Yes, people who are against American foreign policy are mentally ill, and probably racist and Nazis, too... or maybe not? Maybe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of U.S. foreign

Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?

Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.

I've heard people complaining that the data is not being leaked from countries considered to be the "enemies of America", like China, Russia or Iran. Two points in that vein...

1. Strictly practical. There is a sense in which America is so arrogant that leaks are more likely to happen when some disillusioned individual who has been permitted access to the data decides to cash his chips. Government employees in Iran are much more likely to feel like they are part of a valiant and worthy battle against fore

There are enough secret documents and nefarious backroom deals to go around. If Wikileaks has put a stop on submissions because it has too much, then there's clearly room for more, and Wikileaks should welcome them as such. It appears there is at least some indication WL feels that way, but while the people may not be the best of friends their organizations will at least be allies.

The idea of non-profit organizations "competing" is strange. It's kind of like how, with tech products, journalists always want to say "product X is winning" even though product Y is profitable, just not as profitable as product X. I think it's a part of sensationalist journalism that's become the norm: everything is a conflict or it's not worth reporting.

I hope they understand the risks.US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc), but I'm pretty sure once they start messing with China the response will be far more radical than rape charge.

Or Russia... Litvinenko released data about FSB staging false-flag bombings, and see how ended up. And instead of a plausible accident, Russians went a long way to leave their signature on his assassination.

If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.

I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him wit

It's probably slightly cyclical as well. People know about the site in the West because it's reported in the Western news. It's reported in the Western news because it leaks information pertinent to the West. If the news around the rest of the world glosses over the leaks or fails to pick them up at all, it's obvious the site will be better recognised as the go-to for whistleblowers in the West and less so in the rest of the world, so it will attract more leaks from Westerners accordingly.

I don't think that anybody here is really suggesting that wikileaks shouldn't have published all of that stuff.

What annoys me with the site is that they UNPUBLISHED a bunch of stuff when they relased the Iraq war documents, and they remain offline to this day. It seems almost like a marketing decision (no need to distract the public with more than one scandal at a time).

It seems like the organization is more about marketing than getting info out.

That's the media for you nowadays. OT: this is obviously tapping in on some of the public responses that WikiLeaks focusses too much on America. What are they going to do, ignore leaks they receive that are related to America? It just happens to be so that the biggest leaks they received, or rather, the biggest media spectacles around leaks, were related to the American gov.If you take a look at their past leaks it also includes a lot of other leaks related to Scientology, the Bildenberg Group and Australia

Not only are they "not rivals", but anybody who supports what Wikileaks does should be relieved that a new group is springing up. Assange can be locked up, Wikileaks can be taken down; we need two, three, many Wikileaks's.

I find it most amusing that these people don't seem to realize that all this dissension in the ranks is no doubt being encouraged by the CIA and others who would discredit and silence Wikileaks. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that most of this competitor's funding is coming from U.S. government coffers (whether the forkers realize it or not).

Just another front of the smear campaign to try to discredit Assange and Wikileaks. Next they'll be trying to frame him for links to terrorists, or painting him

Cryptome [cryptome.org] has been up and running since -96 and if anything having Wikileaks show up in -06 has only made them more relevant.
This should be a good development, the more targets the harder they will be to take down.

I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.

A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.

You're just making stuff up now. The airstrike video was labeled exactly that: "Baghdad airstrike video" pre-release and later "Collateral Murder" (which is exactly what it was). And then there's the "Iraq War Logs". The media gave it titles as "murder by us troops" not WikiLeaks.

Maybe so and I do not applaud this behaviour but please don't generalize the entire organisation for a slip-up in a TITLE. The OP is assuming they do this with all their releases creating a wrong picture of the organisation. Also he is misquoting the title as "murder by US troops". People don't realize that misquote after misquote end up being entirely different quotes.

Please see my previous reply. I agree with the title but I see how it makes assumptions and I do not applaud it. WikiLeaks should only summarize the information that it is leaking without bias.I'm wondering though. If WikiLeaks did a leak on some mass murder of dealers/whatever in Mexico by armed forces and named it "Mass murder by armed forces in Mexico" would anyone give a shit about the title? Sometimes things that happened are pretty damn obvious, especially when you have the act itself on tape from the

Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.

I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.

There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.

Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.

I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual so I think that even the 5th estate of our society needs to be held to a certain level of accountability. That is why I do not consider most bloggers "journalists" because they are not held accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is even a blogger but just some asswipe who is looking for money and attention and does not give a damn if the information he stole damages lives, reputations or brings us closer to a war.

It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain. If these things are meant to be secret, you'd kind of hope that the agencies responsible for keeping things secret would be all over them. If they can leak to a benevolent source such as Wikileaks, what's to stop them being passed on to a malevolent source such as an opposing nation? Maybe there's more chance of the harmful stuff going to an opposing nation because there's more of a fina

Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.

Yeah except when a country like Saudi Arabia with close ties to US elites, like the bush family for example, urge the US to attack Iran [guardian.co.uk] then the population has a right to know that. They have a right to know that the reasons they are being given by their politicians might not be the whole story, for better or worse. Remember that $60 billion US-Saudi arms deal [wsj.com], the larget ever ? How's that looking in light of this information ?

because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"

you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is

No if you cross the US they just kidnap you and send you to some shithole to be tortured. Then, if it turns out you're not the one they're looking for, they'll dump you out in the middle of nowhere and pressure your government to forget the whole thing ever happened. This is what happened [boingboing.net] to a German of Lebanese descent and that's a case we know of, god knows what else the CIA is up to where nobody's looking.

Oh well, they though he was a terrorist. I guess that's alright then. Your argument boils down to the fact that the US is the best of a bad lot, morality on a sliding scale. I don't accept that. You either stand for liberty and don't do this kind of thing or you wade in the shit with the rest of the totalitarians.

There are already Wikileaks competitors. The differ from Wikileaks in that they actually concentrate on publishing leaking information, rather than self-promotion. That's also why many apparently haven't heard of them. To make a political analogy, Wikileaks is the Sarah Palin of the leak sites--not well respected by those in the know in the leaks community, but has been marketed in such a way as to become the darling of many.

I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).

On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."

It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry

Why are you assuming he gathers his own intel? First of all, it's an organisation consisting of multiple people. Secondly, they have to work with what is leaked to them. They are not people who infiltrate governments or hack databases.Your examples are laughable to say the least. Do you think they can pull such documents out of their ass or something? They need to be LEAKED to them.

Good volunteering; I wish you luck with gathering and publishing that info.It is great how a small start (WikiLeaks) is spurning people on to break this information hegemony.Now we have 'xscess' here offering to take another angle. Make sure to get some help, that is a lot of territory for you to cover.